Posted
by
jamie
on Tuesday November 21, 2006 @11:22AM
from the conveniently-packaged dept.

There's a movie teaser line that you may have seen recently, that
goes like this: "What if you had to tell someone the most important
thing in the world, but you knew they'd never believe you?" The
answer is "I'd try." The teaser's actually for another movie, but
that's the story that's told in the documentary "An Inconvenient
Truth": it starts with a man who, after talking with scientists
and senators, can't get anyone to listen to what he thinks is the
most important thing in the world. It comes out on DVD today.

The scariest horror film of 2006 was a documentary.

The first thing everyone wants to know, or at least to argue about,
is whether Al Gore has his facts straight. The short answer is yes,
he does. There are
minor errors.
They don't detract from Gore's main point, on which the scientific
debate has
ended.

And the main point is scary, and almost too big to think about or
talk about. The earth is warming, because of us. Sometime in the
next hundred years, our environment is going to change in big ways.
We can't predict it with much accuracy yet, but the best estimates
we have are that it's going to be -- measured in
lives
and
dollars
-- really bad.

In a way this film isn't really about that story. It's about a
man telling that story -- someone who, after suffering a bit of a
setback, asked himself, well, what can I do now? What's
important to me? How do I want to spend my time?

What's important is a question a lot of nerds may be familiar with. We like to
talk about important things. But how do you respond when you try to
say something serious and the
cool kids
laugh at you? What do you do, when you put yourself out there, try
to engage people's minds, and instead they
make fun of your clothes?

The good news for anyone who's had a prom invitation rejected is
that people can come back from worse disasters. His presidential bid
didn't go so well in 2000. Gore had given talks on global warming
before; after he was forcibly retired from public service, he took a
Powerbook and Keynote on the road, sharpening and expanding his
slideshow talk in airports and hotels.

Half of the film is that talk, and it's an engrossing talk. There
are charts and diagrams and footnoted stats (and a
Futurama
clip) and it's about as fun as numbers and chemicals get. Turns out
Al Gore has a sly sense of humor (but not a nasty one -- the film's
only two political nudges are pretty gentle). Unless you're a
climate scientist you'll probably learn something too.

But the other half, interwoven with the lectures, is a man
picking up the pieces and rediscovering something important in his
life, a message that he has to tell. That succeeds as a film.

And Gore's lecture succeeded too. Somehow, I'm not sure how, this
documentary changed the way Americans look at global warming. In
early 2006, global warming was still seen as one of those things
that may be true or may not. Pundits were fairly evenly divided and
both positions were routinely heard. It's now late 2006 and the
debate has moved from "is global warming happening?" to "it's
happening, we've caused it, and what if anything should we do about
it?"

Most of the warming-deniers left are the real extremists out in
Rush Limbaugh territory. We're not yet all the way to a serious,
scientifically-informed debate, but somehow, overnight, this film
pulled most of the fence-sitters over to where the scientists were
years ago.

As for actually fixing global warming, it will take a miracle.
Maybe two miracles. I think in the next few decades we're going to
need to start an Apollo moonshot-type miracle of technology and
engineering to beat back the greenhouse effect. Nanorobots.
Reflective dust in the stratosphere. Giant mirrors at the Lagrange
point. Bioengineered plankton to sink carbon or change the oceans'
albedo. Something. That's just a guess.

But meanwhile, though we hope someone can build us an
airbag before we crash the car into the tree, that doesn't absolve
us from stepping on the brakes. Right now, we need a change in
attitude, in our community and our politics, to start slowing the
damage we're doing every day to our grandchildren's Earth -- to buy
them time, and give them more options. The only way that happens is
when the governments of industrialized and developing nations decide
this is a priority.

And the only way that happens is for people everywhere to stop
listening to the cool kids and, once again, pay attention to the
nerds.

I don't think the reason that nobody initially wanted to listen had to do with the story, but rather the storyteller. Gore was about as charming and captivating as an endangered sea turtle. Had some other high profile public figure attacked the problem with the same gusto, there may have been a little more initial acceptance of the core message, which I actually feel would have harmed the result.

Why? Because if anyone else had tried to get congress to act on Global Warming, there would have never been An Inconvenient Truth. Had Gore been more successful in convincing congress to join the Kyoto treaty or strengthen EPA guidelines, I don't believe there never would have been the movie. Which just means that the public would remain uncommitted/unconvinced, and future administrations would have just reversed what the more convincing version of an Al Gore could have achieved in Congress.

What's amazing is that Al Gore's movie really IS engrossing. He comes across as a man with a mission. While he may sensationalize the risk a little at times, he delivers a message that is irrefutable: we must act now. I believe he has helped increase awareness of the problem, and the greater the awareness the greater the chance for long term change. Governments will act on ridiculously expensive endeavours only in the face of overwhelming public support... An Inconvenient Truth is one big step in the right direction.

It is refutable that we must act now with legislation. It is refutable that the Kyoto treaty does anything for the environment. It is refutable to say that humans can stop the general warming trend.It is very refutable to say that we must pass things that look good on paper, allow politicians to pat themselves on the back to get re-elected. It is irrefutable that Kyoto would force millions of people into unemployment, it is refutable to say that Kyoto is even marginally good legislation. It is irrefutab

In many respects I agree, Kyoto is NOT the answer. However, the answer will almost certainly cause a major change in our economy and definition of prosperity. The world cannot sustain 3 ton SUVs, Airbus jumbo jets, and lavish cruise ship vacations forever. We all want our children to live a better life than we do today, but in order for this to happen we need to redefine what 'better' means. If we continue to equate 'a better life' with 'having more stuff', then frankly the environment is doomed.

Until we find far greater stores of cheap clean energy and raw materials, consumption will always yield pollution and environmental damage. We must reduce consumption to reduce global warming. This is the expensive and unfortunate consequence of tackling global warming... the lifestyle that we covet must change. Once/if we move down that path, it will be economically painful in the short-term, but at some point we just won't have any other choices and we'll end up with a radically different society/world (which I am optimistic will be for the better).

And how do you suppose we FORCE people to choose a more simplified lifestyle? Trust me, people are greedy and aren't going to do so by choice. You can provide tax incentives, but you simply aren't going to be able to say, HEY YOU! stop consuming. Its just not going to happen. At least not until we hit peak oil or something else that drastically drives up the price of our consumption. But historically we have always figured out a way around resource limitations, and we will continue to do so. Talk of what people "NEED" to do is about as good as talk of the benefits of Communism. It completely ignores the reality of the situation.

$15/gallon gas will cause the price of food to skyrocket. Who would this affect the most? Probably the poor. Would this cause people to go on government assistance? Maybe that's the end goal? The more people that completely depend on the government, the more control the government has over people so they can tell them what they can and can't do. Then you'll have the environmentally minded and rich people who can afford the increase in prices still living their lifestyle of driving big cars and flying around the country (because they can afford it and I'm sure they have some justification) while they tell the rest of the people how "we all" have to sacrifice for the environment so we don't kill our grandchildren yada-yada-yada and they'll have no choice because if they don't comply they'll be cut off from the government assistance they depend on.

If the fuel prices are inflated artificially (ie taxed at a high rate) perhaps the only think it'll do is cause huge inflation and damage the economy but in the end nothing changes once things even out.

Exactly. I'll not comment here on the underlying scientific debate, but it's suspicious to me that the political aspect of the global warming issue is, "We need to give governments more power." An expert says that collectively "we" should be forced to give up our wealth and freedom (while acknowledging that an elite will be able to keep them) because of a global emergency. Conveniently the emergency is also perpetual, which justifies a permanent power grab. One of the above posts even says that such rules s

I live in Australia, so have no idea what $15/gallon translates to in our terms, but...

Petrol is quite expensive here at the moment (the price per litre has gone up by more than 50% in the last couple of years) - it's been a big issue in the media/public consciousness. Petrol is also taxed fairly heavily here, but that was also true before the price sky rocketed.

Since petrol has become so expensive the price of food doesn't appear to have dramatically increased (in fact, the general inflation rate is more or less unchanged) - but people are tending to buy smaller cars. The most popular cars in Australia used to be 6 cylinder family sedans with 3.8 to 4 litre engines. There seems to be a trend at the moment towards smaller cars with lower fuel consumption.

Now, I don't have hard data on this - I'm talking on the basis of various conversations I've had and what I can observe of the public mindset - but I believe there is a trend in this direction. In short, it's too simplistic to say that a major increase in petrol prices wil lead to massive inflation - it's not actually that simple.

... giving a tremendous market advantage to local farmers who produce food in smaller amounts and with less impact on the environment.

Do you have any idea of how much fuel is used by family farms? I do. Tractors, combines, farm trucks , irrigation wells: all use a lot of fuel. A good percentage of farming expenses come from fuel costs so anything that inflates fuel costs would tend to drive more family farmers out of the business and leave it to the big conglomerates who get savings on the scale of their operations.

And this doesn't even begin to address population growth issues, which are just as big a problem.

Don't worry. When your dream of $15/gallon gas makes it impossible to have affordable food everywhere during all times of the year due to shipping costs, mass starvation will take care of that population thing for you.

Therefore governmental policies must be put in place to drive of the price of consumption..... To reduce consumption in societies that vote for thier leaders will require decisions to be made by those leaders that will be uniformly despised.

And those leaders will be removed from office at the peoples' first opportunity.

I'm continually amazed at the ubiquity of the notion that any problem can be solved by passing a law. Fuel shortages? No problem - just impose a 55 MPH national speed limit and there'll be plenty for everyone. (You'll recall how well that worked out.) Global warming? Just slap a 700% "carbon tax" on fuels and everyone will be driving Priuses (Priii?) and showering with solar-heated water before the decade is out. Enact a treaty, and the rest of the world will eagerly follow suit.

Reality check (1): Any elected officials putting such measures into law would be turned out of office at the next election - if not sooner - and their successors, well-knowing why they were elected, will immediately repeal those measures.

Reality check (2): China, IIRC, has under construction over 50 new coal-fired power plants. Although a Kyoto signatory, their CO2 emissions are projected to surpass USA's by 2010 [energybulletin.net], with no end in sight. No law passed by USA or any other country can temper China's behavior if the Chinese decline to cooperate. And it appears they have no intention of doing so.

Reality check (3): Arbitrary restrictions on peoples' behavior do not work. See the 55MPH thing, the War On Fill-In-The-Blank, any 4th of July in a state that outlaws fireworks, ad infinitum, ad nauseam.

The way to wean people off fossil fuel is to present them with a better and/or easier and/or cheaper alternative. The way to bring those about is with incentives, not with mandates or subsidies. Since 1980 the USA government has pumped something like $50 billion into energy R&D, with nothing significant to show for it. Suppose it were to establish an X prize [xprize.org] to pay, oh, $25 billion to the first organization demonstrating an alternative energy process that (1) is renewable, (2) has less end-to-end environmental impact than coal or petroleum, (3) is at least as end-to-end efficient as coal or petroleum, (4) yields end-user cost and performance comparable to gasoline in a typical mid-size automobile, and (5) is practical on a commercial scale. Would you bet that we wouldn't be retooling the nation for such a process by, say, 2020?

No. You strongly discourage people from buying polluting devices and encourage efficiency. You do that by taxing low efficiency vehicles and using that money to subsidize high efficiency ones (in their size class). If fluorescent bulbs save energy over incandescents, then you do the same with those, and whatever else. Taxing fuel might put us 5 or so years ahead of schedule by doing it this way, but taxing fuel will hurt the poor more and risk the economy much more.

Granted, this results in people making the changes more slowly, but you're not jolting the economy. People can still buy SUVs, but instead of buying one that gets 11mpg, they either have to pay a big premium, or buy one that gets 30mpg. Overall, you push up the efficiency standards, while letting people still have a choice and you don't cause a sudden price increase in transportation costs.

The big problem is GM and Ford. They're screwed and they know it. If we raise the efficiency standard by very much, we're basically banning American made cars in America. Politicians can't let those companies be devastated (huge layoffs != votes), so you won't see the US seriously tackle GW until the American corporations get their shit together. Unfortunately, we have a chicken and the egg situation - the corps won't do anything unless they have to.

In many respects I agree, Kyoto is NOT the answer. However, the answer will almost certainly cause a major change in our economy and definition of prosperity. The world cannot sustain 3 ton SUVs, Airbus jumbo jets, and lavish cruise ship vacations forever. We all want our children to live a better life than we do today, but in order for this to happen we need to redefine what 'better' means. If we continue to equate 'a better life' with 'having more stuff', then frankly the environment is doomed.

Actually, in terms of fuel used, jumbo jets are the most efficient way to move large quantities of people.

You have it exactly backwards. Commercial aviation is the least fuel-efficient way to move people. Maybe you meant to say jumbo jets in particular are more fuel-efficient than other jet aircraft? You might be correct in that case, assuming that the jumbo jet is always completely filled with passengers, which of course is not true.

A 747 burns 3300 gallons of fuel per hour and cruises at 490 knots. Neglecting to consider takeoff and landing, that means that over a 5 hour flight, the plane will have burned 16,500 gallons of fuel and traveled 2450 nautical miles (2821 statute miles). Assuming the plane is completely booked and is carrying 524 passengers (actual seating capacity varies by model and airline), then each passenger is responsible for 31.5 gallons of fuel.

A Cadillac Escalade gets 20 miles per gallon in highway driving. Filled to capacity (as our 747 was. Fair is fair, after all), it seats 8 people. Traveling the same distance (2821 miles) at 20 miles per gallon, this "gas-guzzling SUV" will suck down 141 gallons of premium. Each passenger is responsible for 17.6 gallons of fuel.

The 747, operating under ideal conditions, is barely half as "efficient" as the much-maligned, gas-guzzling Cadillac Escalade. And you want to hold it up as the pinnacle of efficiency? Better check your numbers. Be glad I didn't bring up busses or trains.

And I didn't even go into the fact that the 747 is spewing its exhaust directly into the thin, upper atmosophere, where it can do the most damage.

Basically, 747 gets between 69.8 to 100mpg passenger miles per gallon.

Comparing both vehicles as being "full" is a faulty assumption. Airlines work their arses off to ensure that their airplanes take off as close to capacity as possible. Lots of people drive their SUVs to work alone.

(And the 747 is not exactly Boeings most fuel efficient airplane, the 787 is going to kick its arse! Not a huge jumbo jet, but amazingly cool.:) )

The only fault that comes to mind immediately with this argument is that the Escalade may be carrying eight passengers, but...where is their luggage? Can an Escalade carry eight passengers PLUS two suitcases per passenger (16 suitcases) PLUS a carry-on (eight more bags) PLUS that well-defined personal item (such as a laptop or briefcase, eight more small bags)?

I ask simply because I don't know the cargo capacity of an Escalade. A 747 will carry all that, plus that occasional extra/overweight baggage, without the need for a trailer or rooftop cargo box (both of which will cut your fuel economy considerably).

I think a more equivalent argument would be the fuel required to move a certain amount of mass from point a to point b; after all, that's what's being moved, whether it's people or cargo.

The US Senate signaled in 1997 that it would reject ratification of the treaty by a vote of 95-0 before it was even signed (essentially symbolically) by Al Gore in 1998 . The Clinton Administration never even bothered to submit it to the Senate for a ratification vote, knowing it would never pass. The Bush Administration did little more than indicate that it would never submit it for ratification, because -- as before -- it would never pass.

And the Clinton administration. Kyoto protocol was passed on December 12, 1997. Clinton never submitted it to the Senate for ratification.

Bush has problems with China and India (two of the top polluters) being exempt. This is not a Republican issue, although I encourage you to yell at Reid and Pelosi to pass it.

Relavant wikipedia section:

On July 25, 1997, before the Kyoto Protocol was finalized (although it had been fully negotiated, and a penultimate draft was finished), the U.S. Senate unanimously passed by a 95-0 vote the Byrd-Hagel Resolution (S. Res. 98)[37], which stated the sense of the Senate was that the United States should not be a signatory to any protocol that did not include binding targets and timetables for developing as well as industrialized nations or "would result in serious harm to the economy of the United States". On November 12, 1998, Vice President Al Gore symbolically signed the protocol. Both Gore and Senator Joseph Lieberman indicated that the protocol would not be acted upon in the Senate until there was participation by the developing nations.[38] The Clinton Administration never submitted the protocol to the Senate for ratification.

The Clinton Administration released an economic analysis in July 1998, prepared by the Council of Economic Advisors, which concluded that with emissions trading among the Annex B/Annex I countries, and participation of key developing countries in the "Clean Development Mechanism" -- which grants the latter business-as-usual emissions rates through 2012 -- the costs of implementing the Kyoto Protocol could be reduced as much as 60% from many estimates. Other economic analyses, however, prepared by the Congressional Budget Office and the Department of Energy Energy Information Administration (EIA), and others, demonstrated a potentially large decline in GDP from implementing the Protocol.

The current President, George W. Bush, has indicated that he does not intend to submit the treaty for ratification, not because he does not support the Kyoto principles, but because of the exemption granted to China (the world's second largest emitter of carbon dioxide [39]). Bush also opposes the treaty because of the strain he believes the treaty would put on the economy; he emphasizes the uncertainties which he asserts are present in the climate change issue.[40] Furthermore, the U.S. is concerned with broader exemptions of the treaty. For example, the U.S. does not support the split between Annex I countries and others.

You have utterly no idea what you're talking about. Clinton signed Kyoto, but the Senate voted 95-0 against ratifying it. Later, Bush withdrew the signature, which means nothing since no treaty is binding unless ratified by the Senate, which was and is never going to happen.

On July 25, 1997, before the Kyoto Protocol was finalized (although it had been fully negotiated, and a penultimate draft was finished), the U.S. Senate unanimously passed by a 95-0 vote the Byrd-Hagel Resolution (S. Res. 98)[37], whic

That's because there's a difference between *weather* and *climate*. I might not be able to tell you if it'd be raining this time next month, but I can tell you if it'll be cold in winter, or, more apropos, what things are going to be like averaged over the entire earth with error bars to qualify my prediction.

Damn, that is sooo far fetched! I cannot believe I'm reading this; it's not like people actually try to determine weither it's gonna rain or not in 10 years, it's about tendencies and global change in them... you're sooo clueless it's amazing.

Won't it be hilarious for climatologists when the Ocean Conveyor shuts down and Europe experiences a mini ice age, killing 25% of Europe's population, but it happens 70 years after they predicted it? I can just see your kid (if God forbid you reproduce) posting on Slashdot saying "My Pa always said you were good for nothing bastards, you expected this 70 years ago!"

I cannot predict the outcome of a coin flip. Could be heads, could be tails. But I can sure as hell predict the outcome of a million coin flips: 50% heads, 50% tails. And the error bar on my prediction is going to get smaller and smaller the more coin flips there are.

You are hereby advised not to post about this issue ever again until you have learned the (very, very simple) difference between weather and climate.

It's not really a bandwagon jump if he's BEEN AT IT SINCE HE WAS IN UNIVERSITY!

And where are these arguments against Global Warming being our fault? Seriously, where? And nothing from a newspaper, industry report, or Congressional committee counts on this issue. I'm asking where are the bona fide scientific papers in refereed journals? There aren't any. Saying there is evidence either way on this is like saying cigarettes might not kill you because I have this report from Imperial Tobabcco, and another from the Senate Committee on "Taxes on Tobacco make us piles of money" that say they're healthy.

Please, for our sakes, pull your ignorant head out of your ass and read something.

New Orleans happened because the funds weren't used to shore up the levies like they were supposed to. I know it is popular to blame Huricane Katrina on global warming but we've had a lower than average year on hurricanes this year. I don't think it's conclusive.

"It's not like global warming was unheard of - it just has a credibility problem."

That's because people like to get political instead of scientific when addressing the issue. In the film, it is stated that out of 928 scientific studies on global warming, zero had any doubt that A) it exists and B) we are causing it. So it depends on if you want to listen to science, or politics. Usually the people with the loudest mouths on both sides of the issue have the least to say. Whether or not you believe that it is even happening, it may be prudent to at the very least look into it a little.

That is the real issue - and most people see that. To put it another way, what most people say about global warming is "there is a scientific concensus", and "you can't understand it unless you are a climatologist". Both of those arguments are obviously ad hominum - trust the message because of the messenger.

The issue is the complexity of the problem at hand. It's not a subject that you can learn the intricacies of with a cursory read. As a consequence, pretending that you know why something is right or wrong when you aren't familiar with all of the evidence and science at hand is doing a disservice to the discussion. I know you don't want to have to rely on others. You'd love to have a little experiment in your hands, or a simple equation, or whatnot that demonstrates it. Sadly, the issue is far too complicated for that. You'll have to rely on Peer Review -- the process that has gotten us almost all of the scientific advancements of the past century. I hope that's not too much of a leap of faith for you.

The problem is that there are alternate explanations that have not been eliminated. For example, a possible posit is that atmospheric effects act as an amplifier of the solar input. In other words, a 10% increase in solar activity causes a 100% increase in temperature, with about a 1000 year step response function (or delay before the results show). So a slight increase in solar activity 100 years ago can cause an exponential rise in temperature today.

You seem to have the strange impression that models don't already account for amplification effects (they do), or that the rammifications of changes of solar input haven't been extensively studied (they have). In the latter case, there was yet another report, this one a rather major one, released last year which determined that, even with amplification, solar input couldn't cause more than (1/5th?) of the observed warming. In the former case, the models are so bloody detailed that they take into account how the current windspeeds in China kick up dust (and what kinds), and where they deposit it in the oceans, and how that fuels plankton populations, and how those particular plankton respond... I've briefly chatted with the head of NCAR about their models; they're really incredible. They showed a demonstration of their model operating on the short term, predicting the path of Hurricane Katrina (it was presented to the White House as an "experimental product", but wasn't included in the official predictions). They superimposed the actual hurricane over it. Not only did the path match, but even the rain bands matched. They then superimposed their damage predictions over the actual damage, and again, it matched up near perfectly.

I can't wait until their new supercomputing facility comes online. Unfortunately for NCAR, their computer use requirements are growing notably *faster* than Moore's Law.

The global warming activits do not see what is wrong with what they propose - they say that the changes needed will not put us back in the stone age. But they are talking about taking my money away from me and transfering it to their priorities (for certain values of them and me), at gun point. (I'm assuming here that I am not allowed to opt out).

Because if you could opt out of Kyoto, everyone who produced large amounts of CO2 emissions would, and it would be a pointless gesture. I can just imagine applying your "Opt Out" message to other things in life. Hey, I never got a chance to opt out of these whole "No Murder" laws. They're forcing me, at gunpoint, not to murder people. Can you imagine? What an indignity!

give them the other options, and say choose!

Okay. Here are the options that are currently achievable with modern technology.

1) Cut CO2 levels.

Your call! Take your pick. Yes, there are some proposed methods, but they haven't been studied enough to know what their effects would be, or if they're even possible to implement. Studies are ongoing, but for most, it could be decades before we could start to implement them -- if ever.

Okay. Here are the options that are currently achievable with modern technology.1) Cut CO2 levels.

Your call! Take your pick.

And that is the problem. You feel that you understand the problem, and you have the only solution. Further, you are culling debate (or at the very least, those that agree with you are). You are claiming a consensus, or appealing to authority as the only evidence of your system. (Because of the complexity, etc.)

Look, I hate to say it, but I really am a rocket scientist - this is not

1. Reduce CO22. Put dust in the stratosphere3. Put large mirrors in orbit

1) That's was Kyoto was about.2) That may be dangerous. How would you put the dust down if needed? Seems too much unpredictable.3) Perhaps this requeries much more rocket science than we have realistically available o economically viable today. You can provide some numbers if you feel this feasible.

Climate change has no credibility problem whatosever. It is as much a fact as gravity.

The people with the credibility problem are the folks who've spent the last three decades denying climate change who are now all flip-flopping and telling us "climate change is a completely natural process".

Why the heck won't this myth die? Here's what he actually said:"But it will emerge from my dialogue with the American people. I've traveled to every part of this country during the last six years. During my service in the United States Congress, I took the initiative in creating the Internet. I took the initiative in moving forward a whole range of initiatives that have proven to be important to our country's economic growth and environmental protection, improvements in our educational system."

It's the part where suggestions for preventing it always seems to correlate with a massive government power grab and assault on the free market, and specifically against the United States, which while producing a big chunk of the pollution, also manufactures the most stuff.

It's the part where the proposed solutions always seem like they will have huge and disastrous effects on the economy of developed nations while the developing countries who ar

I'll have to paraphrase, but it is kind of remarkable that the film was made. Jon Stewart tried to imagine pitching a movie with the gripping charisma of Al Gore combined with the drama and excitement of a scientific powerpoint presentation. It's hard to imagine many execs falling over themselves to write that check.

Of course, I'll probably rent it (along with "Who Killed the Electric Car") tonight for a uber-geek double feature.

Which explains one of the controversial aspects of the movie: the apparently equal focus on Al Gore, the man.One reviewer I read hit it on the head: this is a concert movie.

It helps that the concert turns out to be a surprisingly good one, but the film takes you not only backstage, but to the back story. There is a poignancy to watching the man who won the popular vote for US President in 2000 schlepping his stuff from venue to venue, telling the same story over and over. If you don't put a human face on

I have no idea whether Al Gore or anyone affiliated with the film bought advertising on this site. The content/editorial side and the advertising side are kept separate on Slashdot as well or better than any other news website out there.

And it already is filed under both politics and science (check the icons near the top of the story). Both are clearly applicable.

This reminded me of something. I remember being scared to death when I was a kid (20 years ago) because I saw a news article that the o-zone may be completely gone in a 10 years!! Well, what the heck happened? I know there is still a big whole in the ozone but where is it now? The fear mongering media must have moved on.

I also remember in an early science class that we would be out of oil by 2015, but I saw a report recently that we wouldn't be hitting problems until 2050. Not that 2050 is good eith

..with inconvenient truth: People will laugh, people will ignore, people will not like you for telling them about it.
They laughed at Galileo Galilei, they laughed at Gandhi and they now laugh at everything inconvenient.

The short answer is yes, he does. There are minor errors. They don't detract from Gore's main point, on which the scientific debate has ended.

Consensus is NOT proof. I don't know how else to say this. When someone tells you that there is a consensus among scientists on a certain issue, they have proved nothing about the issue itself.. I'm not arguing that global warming is not real, or is not the fault of humans. But I'm tired of people trying to strong-arm me into acquiescing to the point using blatantly un-scientific methods.

The troubling side-issue no one wants to talk about here is that in our modern world of super-specialization it has become increasingly impossible to fact-check our experts. There are at least 3 distinct parties in this conversation: scientists, the media, and the public at large. If either scientists or the media have a bias at all on this issue anyone who believes the tired-old "scientific consensus" argument can be led around just like those religious fools they love to mock: a subject to an irrational trust in authority. Scientific consensus is the argument used to sell us toothpaste and mouth rinse - not to argue substantively for the biggest scientific crisis the world has faced.

This troubling side-issue of authority vs. science won't go away. We are in danger of becoming a society where science is the new priesthood, universities are the new temples, and PhDs are the new bishops of a timid and trusting flock. I'd say this corruption of science is almost as alarming as global warming, and far easier to demonstrate. Any true follower of science must reject "consensus" for what it is: argument by authority. It is, fundamentally, the same monstrosity that corrupted organized religion 1,000s of years ago. It must be rejected if science is to escape the fate of those organized religions.

I don't mean for this to distract from the central point of global warming. That's an important issue as well. The trouble is: how do we make up our minds about the issue if we reject scientific consensus as proof? The only thing I can think of is to understand as much of the issue as we can for ourselves rather than from the media. That's something I definitely need to work harder on.

. Any true follower of science must reject "consensus" for what it is: argument by authority. It is, fundamentally, the same monstrosity that corrupted organized religion 1,000s of years ago. It must be rejected if science is to escape the fate of those organized religions.
Not to go off-topic here,not that I don't agree with you, and not that I know all that much about you, but isn't it a bit.... ironic coming from a fellow named "theStorminMormon"?

Even a devout Catholic can't look at the history of the Catholic church and say that organized religion has been anything other than a monstrosity for most of its history. From the Inquisition to the Crusades to anti-Semitism to political and social oppression - the history of Catholicism is sordid and shameful. Most organized religions fare no better, and the shame of their history simply depends on how long they've been around. The Mormons, for example, have the Mountain Meadows Massacre (http://en.wik

In science, the best you can do are experiments whose results seem to support or not support a theory. Even when the results seem to point one way or another, you can pick apart the methodology, the bias of the experimenters, and more. That's the best you can do with science. It's a human endevor, and has the same human flaws.

That's why we have peer reviewed journals, public debate, and more. No, consensus is not proof. Look at the long standing belief that ulcers were caused by "stress". It turns out it's a bacterial infection and it took a crazy guy drinking a batch of the bacteria to prove his point. But in so many other cases, the evidence changes the consensus. It takes awhile and can be hotly debated, but the process generally works.

Global climate change is in that category. Smaller experiments support it. The historical record supports it. Various measurements support it. Sure, it's not proof, but that's as good as it gets with science.

You *can't* prove a scientific hypothesis! All you can do is provide more and more evidence to back it up. Even General Relativity isn't "proven" in the scientific sense, and as far as theories goes, it's as rigorously tested as they get.

So, the question is, at what point will there be enough evidence to convince you? Personally, I think the answer is "never", because you have your beliefs and you're unwilling to deviate from them.

>Any true follower of science must reject "consensus" for what it is: argument by authority.

Granted, few of us can afford to check their work the way we could check a result in chemistry, by building a planet and measuring what happens to it.

But it's not "argument by authority" when the people being cited love to argue. It's not like a church where anyone who speaks about doctrine has sworn obedience to the hierarchy.

Looking for consensus isn't proof, but it's a good heuristic. Another heuristic is to pay more attention to people who admit uncertainties. Climatologists admit they have huge variation in their forecasts, ranging from serious warming to catastrophic warming.

>The only thing I can think of is to understand as much of the issue as we can for ourselves rather than from the media. That's something I definitely need to work harder on.

Scientists can have whatever bias they want, but science will be the same.

We are in danger of becoming a society where science is the new priesthood, universities are the new temples, and PhDs are the new bishops of a timid and trusting flock.

Yeah, the danger has always been there. Normal people see scientists almost as priests who have "The Truth". The reality is that we do not have "The Truth", we *try* to look for the truth, science is about *understanding* the phenomena of the universe. In fact, there is no truth after all, there are only *accepted models* (theory).

The issue here is that, scientists have discovered information that shows the impact that humans are making to the environment, the problem is that normal people (non scientists) always look for a black and white "simple" answer (thats why "God" was invented).

It is, fundamentally, the same monstrosity that corrupted organized religion 1,000s of years ago. It must be rejected if science is to escape the fate of those organized religions.

Oh no it is not, the difference is that for any scientist to get reputation, it must have published some work which is *peer reviewed* by other scientists. And, as we saw with the chinesse scientist, it is very easy to lose the reputation if they make fraud.

And ultimately, no mattering the reputation of the scientists, science will continue to grow and our understanding will continue to grow.

The real problem is in pollitics, the governments do not care about global warming, as they do not care about lots of other things just because they do not understand it. To understand it, the problem must be stated in terms of profit or loss (of wealth or mind-share).

I watched this movie and I think it was great. I would really invite other people to watch it. But the sad thing is that, anyone who refuses to accept the issues of global warming will just waste 2 hours and then after watching the movie will just try to make excuses.

We are in danger of becoming a society where science is the new priesthood, universities are the new temples, and PhDs are the new bishops of a timid and trusting flock. I'd say this corruption of science is almost as alarming as global warming, and far easier to demonstrate. Any true follower of science must reject "consensus" for what it is: argument by authority.

Incorrect. Argument by authority [nizkor.org] "is fallacious only when the person [cited] is not a legitimate authority in a particular context." Climate scientists are, of course, exactly the authority one should cite about matters of climate science.

Comparing science to religion is very much the rage but the simple fact is that science produces testable theories which seek to correctly describe the world around us, while religion does not. Anyone with education and intelligence who studies scientific research or does their own scientific experiments can correct scientific errors, and this is not true for religion.

I'm not sure why you went off and attacked the concept of consensus because I wrote (correctly) that the scientific debate on this matter had ended. The vast majority of climate scientists acknowledge that the Earth is getting warmer and that one of the causes is human production of the greenhouse gas carbon dioxide. It is virtually impossible to find any respectable scientist who will disagree, anymore.

What this means is that we -- lay readers like you and I, and scientists alike -- can move on to other questions. Maverick scientists are of course welcome to try to disprove the existing consensus belief, and the wonderful thing about science is that they are always welcome to do so (and will receive great acclaim if they are right and everyone else is wrong). But it is correct, and significant, and important to say that there is consensus and the scientific debate on this particular question is over.

No, the article's point is valid, if sloppily made. Appeal to authority, slightly more formally, is the step of deriving from

ASSUMPTIONS:

Z speaks the truth about X

Z says that Y(X) is true

the conclusion

DERIVE:

Y(X) is true

i.e. if you have reason to believe that a person knows about a topic and is honest about it, then you can base your assumptions on what they say. Of course, as with all logic, if your assumptions are false your argument falls down—in this case, if there's no reason to believe

Then please conduct an experiment in which you demonstrate global warming.

Note that GP did not stipulate "experimentally testable". Only testable. While proof under laboratory conditions provies the most controlled environment for testing, requiring all scientific theories to have laboratory proof would invalidate not only climate science, but astronomy, much of geology, biology and even physics.

Guess climatology is a religion now?

It would be if the consensus was unsassaible. But its not. Scientific consensus does get overturned from time to time, and with it must fall arguments that rely upon it. But at some point you reach the "extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof" stage.

Anybody is free to dispute anything. However that doesn't give everybody equal a priori claim to credibilty. Where a challenge is made to consensus derived from the best avaialble process for evaluating such claims, then a reasonable person should impose a higher standard of proof or a narrower scope of claim upon the challenger.

For example, if I claim that O2 is denser than CO2, I am not entitled to demand that everybody consider all prior and contrary observations false. Instead, I may claim at most that measured by a certain technqiue O2 appears denser than CO2, and that there are reasons to consider the new test as more reliable than the old one. We then proceed to test the narrower claims before debating the broader ones. If it turns out I have made some mistakes in my technique, or my math, or my interpretation, I must correct it before even my narrow claims can proceed. Until the faults in my proof are cured, I have no further claim to scholarly rebuttal, even if the resulting doubt is relatively small.

On the other side of the debate, the arguments need not be as robust. They only need to establish that a reasonable person may doubt my challenge; I must demonsrate that only an unreasonable person could doubt my challenge.

Clearly this places an assymetrical burden of proof on challengers to scientific consensus. But it is not an unassaiable barrier to valid challenges. It is quite possible to overturn incorrect scientific consensus under these conditions, but it is impossible to maintain a correct consensus under any other.

If we imposed a symetrical burden of proof on the scientific consensus, scientists would spend their time going over the same ground over and over. Most scientists I know relish a valid claim that throws prior assumptions into doubt. But nobody wants to spend their time taking apart yet another design for a perpetual motion machine.

The big problem is that we, as humans, tend to live 70-80 years. Why is that a problem? Well, it's physically impossible, unless somebody invents time travel, for anybody to be a scientific expert in much more than one or possibly two fields. There's just not enough time for everybody to become an expert on every issue. So where does that leave us?Well, we can believe nothing until each one of us personally has spent 20 years researching the thickness of arctic ice caps.

The thing is, consensus is all we have. We can't absolutely prove anything with 100% certainty. All we can do is work with the best data and models we have available.

We have used the theory of evolution in medical research which has resulted in countless lives being saved. Should we have waited until we convince all the ID people before we start using the theory of evolution to develop new medicine.

Yes, it is good to have suspicion of consensus, but you can't let that suspicion paralyse you. If these theories of global warming are correct then we need to act now. By the time we have absolute conclusive 100% certain "proof" it will be too late.

I'm reminded of of someone discussing the reaction time of governments. Imagine there were a virus that doubled the amount of people infected everyday. First one person, then 2 on the next day, then 4 on the day after that, then 8, 16, 32, etc. The government only reacts when a quarter of the population is infected. How much time do they have to contain the virus or find a cure? Two days.

Sometimes if you wait for a problem to have real demonstrable effects you leave yourself too little time to find a solution.

. The trouble is: how do we make up our minds about the issue if we reject scientific consensus as proof? The only thing I can think of is to understand as much of the issue as we can for ourselves rather than from the media. That's something I definitely need to work harder on.

It is far better to act on the basis of authority than not act at all. 98% of people do not have the ability or time to work through the equations and models themselves. Does this mean we should never act on environmental issues?

The debate among informed parties IS over. That's the whole freaking point here, sheesh. The problem is that politics and the general populace are still insisting on acting as if this is not the case, DESPITE the facts provided by the scientific community.

Or did you miss that in the synopsis above? Christ, even Al Gore knows this! This movie is about the problem that the people that Know this for fact are having a HELL of a time getting those that do NOT know to LISTEN.

It's not about whether it is true or not, it's whether people will ACCEPT it or not. Business and Politics do NOT want to accept this, because to accept it would REQUIRE major change...major change being an understatement. It would REQUIRE business and politics as we know it to COMPLETELY reevaluate how they work. Never mind our consumerist society.

People don't want to give up their SUV's or their PS2049's, or whatever other crap they don't need...Business doesn't want to stop selling you the crap you don't need...Politics doesn't want to rock this boat...

Accepting or Not Accepting the facts has NOTHING to do with the facts. Global Warming is REAL. Self Induced Climate Change is REAL. These are FACTS.

Whether you are too attached to your consumerist lifestyle to hear the facts or not is what the real issue is. Herein lies the real debate...unfortunately no one wants to have that debate because you might just end up having to take some level of responsibility for where we are at right now and actually DO something about it. It's easier to just keep driving that suv into the sunset until the day the sun doesn't rise again...then we can deal with it, cause at that point at least you'll have that 'proof' you needed won't you.

If this particular issue remains so divided, to put it bluntly, we're completely and utterly fucked, period. That's really what I'm arguing here.We absolutely know enough to know that we should be doing something about the sources of these problems, even though we don't know everything about the problems or the effects they are having or will have in the future. But we damned well can work towards stopping the damage we are doing, even WHILE the scientific community continues looking into the plethora of is

Oddly enough, neither have the economists who say that we're going to screw up the economy by doing something about this. Both academic groups have a couple of things in common: they're both studying complex systems where very little experimental evidence is available and they've both had a mixed track record. In most cases when a hard science (like climatology) comes up against a soft science (like economics), the scientific peanut gallery tends to believe the hard science. The fact that this is not the case here is a clear indication that something is seriously being spun on the other side. All I can say is that I go with the hard science. Past experience shows that you ignore hard science at your own peril, but that ignoring economists is not nearly as hazardous to your health.

The popular belief here is that all climiate scientists agree with Gore's conclusions about Global Warming. It would seem that is not the case. From this article [canada.com].

"I can assure Mr. Gore that no one from the South Pacific islands has fled to New Zealand because of rising seas. In fact, if Gore consults the data, he will see it shows sea level falling in some parts of the Pacific." -- Dr. Chris de Freitas, climate scientist, associate professor, University of Auckland, N.Z.- - -"We find no alarming sea level

Please use "!proved" to mean the opposite of "proved" -- we'll eventually implement synonyms for tags and those two forms of opposites will join together anyway.

And of course if you want to express the opposite of the suggested tags or any others, prepend a "!", e.g. "!notscience !notproved !fud". Of course, categorizational tags ("globalwarming algore") are just as welcome as opinion tags and ultimately help Slashdot even more...

Last I heard, they were still arguing over the existence of the medieval warming period and a hundred other possible oddities in recent climatological history. There is quite a bit of debate over what our role in the warming is, and what the climate will do in the next hundred and the next thousand years.

The earth is warming. We may or may not have a role in the warming. We do know for certain that our presence has affected climates at the local level; there *is* some debate still over how much influence we exercise over the global climate. Science has been wrong several times about climate change in the past few decades (The big chill never happened, and warming hasn't progressed nearly as quickly as was once predicted). We've got a lot left to learn before we can accurately predict where this is going.

Don't do science a disservice and proclaim an end to debate. One of the key tenets of science is that very few things are absolute, and our knowledge of climate certainly isn't one of them. As often as science has proved itself wrong in the past, to proclaim an end to debate over a subject like global climate change and declare once side to be fact is to spit in the face of science.

And yet, despite all this, what has really been accomplished? Sure, there's more "awareness" but have people started scrapping their SUVs for Priuses? Have there been any major governmental (in the U.S., at least) commitments to renewable/carbon neutral technologies? Have we come any closer to an idea of how to deal with the fact that two of the most populous nations on Earth, China and India, are increasing in their use of fossil fuels as we speak?Kudos to Gore for doing his part; Lord knows it's been a th

There are some conclusions that I think are inevitable...
The final ultimate conclusions is essentially:

Wind or solar energy-farms should be build in gargantuan scales.
If one is dubious about such large scaling, just think of Google, they use tens of thousands of
computers to power the search machine, all are centrally controlled and maintained.

Nothing, absolutely nothing, says it can't be done with energy-farms on colossal areas.
These farms are used for sequesteration and also as an energy source.
This does not depend on changing human nature, it will work and it will pay itself of.
All it needs is for someone to propagate the idea.

Runup to that conclusion:

Sadly recent news and statistics can let one only draw the
following conclusions:

it is not possible to change human habits
even if the first world nations reduce CO2 emmisions, the second and
third world nations will compensate by buying oil and coal no longer
being bought by first world nations [1]

for us as a developed and civilized world to (really don't want to sound
melodramatic) survive this, we will need to reduce CO2 levels in the
atmosphere.
As much as I would like humanity to finally change its habits and maybe become a bit more
conscious of itself as a whole: what I would like has little influence on what "is" ;
in particular little influence on 6 billion+ people... (e.g. China will likely overtake the
US concerning CO2 emmisions in 10 years...)

Since (1) will happen no matter what, reduction of CO2 in the atmosphere by reducing emmisions
will not be enough

the conclusion from (3): sequesteration of CO2
requirement: large amounts of energy

the amount of energy needed for (4) will be large, it cannot come from other
limited sources such as gas or atomic
thus it must come from renewable sources: wind, solar, tidal/water
(I exclude fusion since this is still too uncertain for the next 30 years)

no matter what the source of energy, the industry needed to provide the amounts of energy
will be huge,
it cannot only be used for sequesteration but also (obviously as an energy source)

a second conclusion of (1) is that humanity cannot change one of it's habits:
consumption of resources / pruduction of goods, both need energy;
if we cannot solve the problem by reducing consumption of energy,
then we solve the problem by producing more means of producing energy

based on (7) look for systems that have a positive energy return on energy investment
scale the good candidates to very large levels
basically I think (8) is the only way to go for humanity, (8) is then applied to (4)
examples of (8) can be found : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Future_energy_develop ment [wikipedia.org]

first example:
a wind turbine produces enough energy for a bit more then 300 homes, the US has approx. 300 million citizens,
and maybe 80 million homes, thus 1000*1000 wind-turbines would supply enough energy
for all households and sequesteration of CO2
just lining them up next to each would not work since there is only so much wind availible,
spacing them at a distance of 1km to each other might work, thus one would need
1 million square kilometers, the US itself occupies 10 million square kilometers.
wind turbines could be setup on the same areas used for agriculture
the energy return on energy investment is more than twenty-fold,
amortization after approx. 3 years.
Amount of time to build: decades

a further maybe quicker to implement example for (8) would be to create large industries
that create huge amounts of solar panels, not based on silicon but instead
on the energy/resources-cheaper version: copper indium gallium selenide (CIGS) solar panels [2]
[3] claims th

If you'd like to recreated a lot of the stuff from the movie, using real data as inputs and getting similar results as what Gore gets, the EdGCM [columbia.edu] project has wrapped a NASA global climate model (GCM) in a GUI (OS X and Win). You can add CO2, re-arrange the continents, change the vegetation cover, or turn the sun down by a few percent all with a checkbox and a slider. Supercomputers and advanced FORTRAN programmers are no longer necessary to run your own GCM.
Disclaimer: I'm the project developer.

You can contact CWI through their website. Lewis's research is pretty through and I'll advise anyone who really wants to know the truth to actually read what he has to say and think about it rather than just posting a knee jerk reaction. Lewis makes some pretty good points.

If course I expect my post will get modded down. If so - its just another knee jerk reaction by those who wish to suppress the truth rather than actually look at the data.

"Most of the warming-deniers left are the real extremists out in Rush Limbaugh territory."

I still have serious doubts about the science and I am far from Limbaugh territory. I lived through the dire Global Cooling warnings of the 1970s/1980s and I've seen my share of scientific scams. I've studied the research to the best of my ability and read the arguments on both sides. The evidence hasn't convinced me that humans are causing warming beyond natural processes. Global weather is complex.

I've seen the movie, and it's well done. There's a single slide in it that really tells the whole story, that I've recreated here in hand-drawn version.

In a nutshell:

The global population, in absolute numbers, was relatively small untill the last few hundred years, since when it's been growning exponentially

Global CO2 levels follow a natural cycle, but are recently WAY above the natural cycle level due to industialization caused by population growth

Global temperature naturally tracks CO2 levels (greenhouse gas effect), but lags it. Global temperatures are currently close to the natural cycle level, but we only need to look at the CO2 and population curve to see where they are headed - into disasterous territory

The natural cycle timeline here (per Gore's graph) is very long - these are the last few ice ages we're looking at, with data derived from artic ice cores etc.

The inevitable conclusion is that global temperature follows CO2 level and CO2 level is already way above normal due to industrialization. The vertical/horizontal axis here are about in correct ration (showing how far above the normal range the CO2 level is).

William Connolley on realclimate [realclimate.org] parsed the question fairly, here:

The main points that most would agree on as "the consensus" are:

The earth is getting warmer (0.6 +/- 0.2 oC in the past century; 0.1 0.17 oC/decade over the last 30 years (see update))

People are causing this.

If GHG emissions continue, the warming will continue and indeed accelerate.

(This will be a problem and we ought to do something about it)

I've put those four points in rough order of certainty. The last one is in brackets because whilst many would agree, many others (who agree with 1-3) would not, at least without qualification. It's probably not a part of the core consensus in the way 1-3 are.

I understand that I can either argue from authority (ask you to take my word for it as an expert) or provide some [sciencemag.org] evidence [wikipedia.org].

You will see in these Slashdot discussions plenty of weaseling on the first three points, despite readers of this list presumably being better informed on science than the general public. The first three points are not open questions in science. Like anything in science they are open for revisiting, but they are not where the action or controversy lies within the research community.

While I agree with the fourth point very strongly, and while a majority of participants in the relevant sciences probably do, it's not universally agreed. It's not really a scientific question, though; it's a question in economics, policies, values, and risk.

The broad scientific questions, the ones typically up for debate, are essentially settled.

What interests me here is why people continue to rant about questions that are part of the consensus, when the case is pretty much closed. They take offense when one has the temerity to suggest they are not only barking up the wrong tree, but that the tree they are barking up was chopped down for pulp years ago, but they don't seriously consider the possibility that while the policy is uncertain, the broad outlines of the facts are known well enough.

For those of you who think people like me are wrong, disingenuous, or even dishonest, consider how the situation looks to you vs how it would look if we were basically right. There would be organizations with substantial investments in resources (especially fossil fuels) whose long term value would be at risk. (There's ample precedent. Consider the history of the tobacco industry.) Their fiduciary responsibility to their shareholders would be to minimize that risk. They would therefore inject the greatest possible doubt into the public's understanding of the science.

Consequently, there would be many arguments in the press, mostly appealing to the elements in the society who are generally most suspicious of regulation and taxation, that would cherry-pick evidence and spin tales that were scientifically incoherent and yet superficially convincing.

They would appeal to the fairness of the lay audience. They would claim that there are two sides to every issue. They would object to any presentation that was scientifically balanced on the grounds that their manufactured opinion was not represented. The echoes of this argument ring through every public discussion of the topic, on Slashdot and elsewhere.

Science and commerce do not deserve equal time on scientific questions. Cherry picked evidence does not deserve equal time with the totality of the evidence. The best policy is not a compromise between truth and fiction.

Capitalism is necessary for prosperity, and vigorous defense of private interests is part of the game. Cherry-picking evidence isn't illeg

I was really pretty pissed off by that episode, actually. It's obviously satire mocking global warming -- but it's just crude name-calling. I know that's what South Park is supposed to be, but I have a problem when it starts distributing the mental tools for people to stick their fingers in their ears and say "na na na!" about something that matters.

I see it from another perspective. South Park's commentary introduces me to biases that I have never even considered before, biases that allow me to put my own in perspective. For example, they taught me that it's *okay* to hate the anti-drug people - that it's not hypocritical to be anti-tobacco yet still hate that jackass in the "zephyr" awareness commercials. Likewise, I never had any strong opinions about illegal immigration (and still don't), but all the same I did not identify at all with Americans who have lost their jobs until I saw the SP episode satirizing that issue.

If you disagree with the messages conveyed by South Park, fine. It's not like I choose to believe everything they say either. But how about instead of making a fuss because they happen to promote a view you don't like, you just accept South Park as a welcome source of underrepresented criticisms, and make up your mind for yourself.

Yeah, 0.1% or less of the scientific community (if we're really generous) that doubts global warming is given 50% airtime and their extreme minority views compared to the overwhelming scientific consensus are titled "debate". That is SO underrepresented.

Personally I never watch South Park OR Al Gore. or other politicans... all are equally relavant and entertaining; not one whitAs to global warming I am sure it is warming Al's pocketbook but I foind hun causes to be somewhat...doubtful as do many who really view this with an open mind. To quote another on this; It seejms mankind's intervention must be causing warming even beyond this globe:

Piltdown Man was not accepted as totally valid, although it made it into a few textbooks. Pluto's alleged warming is based on a grand total of two datapoints (each corresponding to it crossing in front of a star and its atmosphere distorting the light in different manners, with the density of the atmosphere (sampled along one line!) assumed to correspond to the temperature), and would be not really surprising, given that Pluto has passed its closest point to the sun only recently, and should still warm up if it has any thermal inertia. Triton's warming likewise is attested via a comparison of 15 year old data with recent earth-bound observations. We know nothing about it's climate cycle. The Saturn article does not mention any warming, just a storm. The Jupiter article does not mention any warming, just a storm that causes regional climate change. The "global" warming on Mars is a 3 Martian year local trend, influenced by the frequency of dust storms. Mars is very hard to compare with Earth anyways, as its orbit is much more eccentric and hence orbital cycles have a much higher influence.

Actually, By the time Piltdown Man was revealed as a hoax, many anthropologists' models of human evolution were already regarding it as an aberration and disregarding it. I imagine quite a few of them blew sighs of relief when they heard it was a hoax. There were a few at the time of discovery believed it to be a hoax, too. I suppose time will tell on the global warming debate, too.

The research is biased. A huge majority of the people researching climate change support the theory. If it were 50/50 I might consider it.

All of the equipment used to test the 'evidence' is owned by these biased scientists.

As the parent said, Al Gore and the 'scientists' all make a ton of money scaring people into sacrificing for their cause. It's a war-on-terror, but on a global scale.

The scientist who wants to spread reflective dust into the atmosphere is also spreading BS. If it reflects, then it would reflect light back onto Earth, probably creating a greenhouse effect times ten.

The average temperature rises once every century because of El Nino

The scientists neglected to mention that the salt concentration in the ocean might be rising due to a lack of carbon [wikipedia.org] in the atmosphere to break down potassium chloride and sodium nitrate. This research has been thrown out and suppressed dozens of times because it would actually increase the amount of oxygen in the atmosphere as well. You don't want that when we're trying to sell fear, do we?

Show me one experiment I can verify myself with the tools in my garage.

When the script for An Inconvenient Truth was written by Steven Soderberg as a science-fiction thriller, it was bought and discarded. Exactly four months later, about the time it takes a documentary to be produced and filmed, Al Gore's movie came out. Coincidence?

That's simply disingenous. With the Big Bang, there's no other reasonable theories that exist right now because no one can even conceive of alternate possibilities to match the data we have. With global-warming-caused-by-man, there are innumerable potential theories, and right at the top of the list is "it's merely coincidental." The data doesn't show anything significant beyond coincidence. And frankly, even that's mostly because the data has been fudged.Also, your claim that things are going to get wo

Note that the Reason article basically agrees with Gore on every major point. Global warming is happening. It's caused to some extent by human activity. Glaciers are melting because of global warming. Predictions are that polar bears "will have a problem," he says euphemistically, and he cites a very conservative estimate whose severity has been upgraded within the past few months.

The Reason article even paraphrases Gore as saying "global warming is increasing the intensity of hurricanes," and retorts "th

Yes... but the question is how you enforce the goal. Do you have the government put a gun to people's heads and threaten to kill them if they don't reduce consumption or make things more efficent, or is it a decentralized popular social movement? No one has a problem with protecting the enviornment... it is just the question of how much police powers to regulate private non-violent behavior that we disagree about.Al Gore is of the school that thinks totalitarian government is the solution to enviornmental p